California WCABLaw firm

CDLP Law

CDLP Law is named in 7 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (1), Cumulative trauma (1) and Psyche AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Los Angeles, then Marina del Rey.

Decisions: 7
Years: 2023–2026
Issues disputed: 3
District offices: 4

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Who they face

We could not read this firm’s own side from the record, so there is no other side to name.

Carriers and administrators

Beta Healthcare Group Roseville4

Where they appear

Los Angeles 2
Marina del Rey 2
Van Nuys 2
Santa Ana 1

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this firm does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

5 for the defense
3 for the applicant

Counted over 7 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ18201897 · 2025-06-03 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5IV. Finally, we turn to the merits and begin by noting that the employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) In this case, applicant met that burden by presenting the credible testimony, her own and that of defendant's witness, that she sustained industrial injury on March 14, 2023. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 2/3/25, at pp. 5:15-16; 15:22-23; 6:23-25; 7:4-10; 9:1-3. The WCJ found all the witnesses, including defendant's witness, to be credible and that their testimony supported the finding that applicant sustained industrial injury on March 14, 2023. We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.
Applicant met the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by presenting credible testimony, corroborated by defendant's witness and documentary evidence, that she sustained an industrial injury on March 14, 2023. The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight, and documentary evidence supported the finding.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ13956162 · 2023-12-26 · Marina Del Rey District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of October 3, 2023, wherein it was found that while employed as a medical assistant during a cumulative period ending June 23, 2020, applicant sustained industrial injury to the psyche. Applicant also claims industrial injury to the right wrist, "sleep-neurology," and "head-cognitive," but all other issues other than injury to the psyche were deferred.
The WCJ and WCAB found substantial medical evidence from PQME Dr. Marina Lensky that the psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by industrial events at work, including harassment by a supervisor, overwork, and a negative performance evaluation. Defendant failed to present a good faith personnel action defense or adequately challenge the causation evidence.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15298613 · 2026-04-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the "Finding(s), Order(s), and Opinion on Decision" issued on February 9, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant established good cause for a replacement panel due to the unavailability of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) to set an initial evaluation appointment.
The WCJ properly applied the Vazquez factors and found good cause for replacement due to QME unavailability, and the Appeals Board found no abuse of discretion in denying removal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ19847475 · 2025-04-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on February 10, 2025, and 60 days from the date of transmission is April 11, 2025. This decision is issued by or on April 11, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).
The Appeals Board acted within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909(a) and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ18784660 · 2024-11-18 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1I. Former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board. (b)
The petition for reconsideration was timely acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board, but the underlying order was not final as it resolved only an intermediate procedural issue. Removal was denied as petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15076668 · 2023-11-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13721924 · 2023-06-22 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

CDLP LAW
CDLP LAW, APC

Is this your firm and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this firm is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

How the appealed decisions came out

5 for the defense

3 for the applicant

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ18201897 · 2025-06-03 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5IV. Finally, we turn to the merits and begin by noting that the employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) In this case, applicant met that burden by presenting the credible testimony, her own and that of defendant's witness, that she sustained industrial injury on March 14, 2023. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 2/3/25, at pp. 5:15-16; 15:22-23; 6:23-25; 7:4-10; 9:1-3. The WCJ found all the witnesses, including defendant's witness, to be credible and that their testimony supported the finding that applicant sustained industrial injury on March 14, 2023. We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.

Applicant met the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by presenting credible testimony, corroborated by defendant's witness and documentary evidence, that she sustained an industrial injury on March 14, 2023. The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight, and documentary evidence supported the finding.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ13956162 · 2023-12-26 · Marina Del Rey District OfficePsyche AOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of October 3, 2023, wherein it was found that while employed as a medical assistant during a cumulative period ending June 23, 2020, applicant sustained industrial injury to the psyche. Applicant also claims industrial injury to the right wrist, "sleep-neurology," and "head-cognitive," but all other issues other than injury to the psyche were deferred.

The WCJ and WCAB found substantial medical evidence from PQME Dr. Marina Lensky that the psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by industrial events at work, including harassment by a supervisor, overwork, and a negative performance evaluation. Defendant failed to present a good faith personnel action defense or adequately challenge the causation evidence.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15298613 · 2026-04-21 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the "Finding(s), Order(s), and Opinion on Decision" issued on February 9, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that applicant established good cause for a replacement panel due to the unavailability of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) to set an initial evaluation appointment.

The WCJ properly applied the Vazquez factors and found good cause for replacement due to QME unavailability, and the Appeals Board found no abuse of discretion in denying removal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ19847475 · 2025-04-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on February 10, 2025, and 60 days from the date of transmission is April 11, 2025. This decision is issued by or on April 11, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).

The Appeals Board acted within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909(a) and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ18784660 · 2024-11-18 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1I. Former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board. (b)

The petition for reconsideration was timely acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board, but the underlying order was not final as it resolved only an intermediate procedural issue. Removal was denied as petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15076668 · 2023-11-29 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13721924 · 2023-06-22 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →